Wednesday, April 20, 2016

The Global Warming charlatans are planning a propaganda push. This is from a science activist mailing list.

Climate Feedback works like this: Using the new web-annotation platform Hypothesis, scientists verify facts and annotate online climate articles, layering their insights and comments on top of the original story. They then issue a "5-star" rating so readers can quickly judge stories' scientific credibility. Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others, Climate Feedback is already improving journalistic standards by flagging misreported climate science in mainstream outlets; earlier this month, for example, scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg's misleading op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This is only a hint of what Climate Feedback has in store as it begins to aggregate those credibility scores into a wider index, rating major news sources on their reporting of climate change as part of a new Scientific Trust Tracker.

To that end, Climate Feedback is launching a crowd funding campaign on April 27 around the hashtag #StandWithScience, supported by leading climate minds like Profs. Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and others. I invite you to take a look at this sneak preview of our campaign (NOTE: please do not share publicly before April 27). The Exxon climate scandal has already made its way into the 2016 election season, but few have discussed the role the media has played enabling corporate interests to sow doubt about the science of climate change, which has long confused the public and undermined political support for dealing with the issue. As 350.org founder Bill McKibben said of Climate Feedback: Scientists are just about ready to come out of the lab and get more active and when they do, it will make a remarkable difference.

Let's disrupt it. VFM, you know what to do. Political activism is not science. #StandWithScience.

#StandWithScience = evolution stopped at the neck in humans & lesbians are fat because people keep making them cakes.

The sign of a needy individual, yapping away when he should be keeping his mouth shut. Loose lips sink ships.

The reason leftists want no consequences for the Mexican caught on video tossing the 8yo white girl Maddy Middleton's body into a dumpster after raping her to death is the cat ladies think "Maybe he would go for a post menopausal woman that could fit a Brady Deflategate football in her vajayjay"

Have you ever noticed how these SJW-zombies never die - no matter how many times they're destroyed and discredited? Whether it's the New Duranty Times or the AGW scam, it just keeps lumbering along. I remember Auster commenting on this once, how they're like the metallic assassin in Terminator III: You can blow them to smithereens but they always somehow re-constitute themselves and come at you again.

How many years has it been since decades-worth of their dataset has been exposed as being completely manufactured from thin air?? Apparently the puppeteers who pull the strings of Cruzman-Sachs and the rest of the monstrous regiment of psychopaths still want to sell their cow-fart derivatives to the Chinese or to the Repuke Chamber-of-Commerce Pedo-Bear parade or to whatever stupid morons will buy them.

You think the Mohammedans are bad? Those who repeat the science-fetshists' shahadah are likely several orders of magnitude worse even than those who repeat Mohammed's: There is no truth but warming, and AlGore is its profit!

They then issue a "5-star" rating so readers can quickly judge stories' scientific credibility. Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others,

There is not a damn thing we can come up with that will make that any funnier.

The role the media has played enabling corporate interests to sow doubt about the science of climate change

Good gravy, I despite it when people on the left talk like this. Yeah sure blame the media which is sooooo conservative. Blame corporate interests who are sooooo conservative. As always, if 97% of what we hear promotes View X... then they rail against the remaining 3%.

The trolls for this hashtag are just to numerous to count... We can go human biodiversity and call them racists for creating it... or we can talk about biological gender trumping gender identity and then call them all transphobic.

BGKB wrote:#StandWithScience = evolution stopped at the neck in humans & lesbians are fat because people keep making them cakes.

The sign of a needy individual, yapping away when he should be keeping his mouth shut. Loose lips sink ships.

The reason leftists want no consequences for the Mexican caught on video tossing the 8yo white girl Maddy Middleton's body into a dumpster after raping her to death is the cat ladies think "Maybe he would go for a post menopausal woman that could fit a Brady Deflategate football in her vajayjay"

By all means, the lies of AGW are exposed - Gen X and many mil'lens know AGW is just financial rape of us and we are not going to go along with financial rape with Blood and Gore (for real, its AlGore's deal)

Hey Twitter, we soon wont and dont need you, the men are building something BETTER than Twitter.

Our men and the Lord will save the day and not abide by lies, deception and nullsense or clicks/re-tweets - we dont need you and your IPO is gonna fail like Facebook!

Of all the leftist economists, Bjorn Lomborg is at last rational and capable of logical debate. That is why they hates him. He has shown that the left wing reaction to anthropogenic global warming will not greatly reduce the warming while forcing economic growth to stall and more people to be miserable (Texans without air conditioning and other horrors). He suggests that simple practical actions to deal with climate change are much more affordable and likely to work. And they hate him. Further proof it is all a big lie to give big government more control over the people. Not that the ilk needed any more proof...

I Will say this. It does seem to me that we got more below zero weather in the 1960s, but I also remember one Xmas day around 62 or 63 when it was in the 70s. This was northern Ind. (Goshen). The weather just changes a lot. I also remember a drought so extreme that I waded across th St. Joseph river while my little dog swam alongside. I never saw that before or since that one time.

Notwithstanding that I see no evidence for sustained global warming - at least, not yet - the climate change issue is one wherein I don’t entirely see eye-to-eye with the Ilk for the reasons I have outlined here: project_observations

In a nutshell, I think there are seasonal trends that clearly demonstrate the influence of something. And, further, depict what I would expect of an insulator. If not a greenhouse gas effect, then what? Something is causing these seasonal trends. If anyone has ideas what might be causing them besides greenhouse gases, I am all ears. (The project observations link provides more depth to my argument.)

My position asserted, what the Ilk is saying about AGW is not wrong. I not only agree that global warming apologists are not engaged in science, I will go one step farther and assert that NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC have selected temperature anomaly baselines to manipulate plotted data to create the appearance of global warming. I have looked for justification of their selected baselines but have never found any. It just seems to be accepted.

@57. I'm a contrarion by nature so while I do believe the climate is changing I don't buy in so to speak. Some questions I'd love for a climate scientist to answer:

- How much is natural vs man made?- If any of it is natural what exactly do we think we can do about it?- How much influence do other factors such as solar activity play into it?- If we are LITERALLY facing the extinction of our species why are we not doing something serious about it, like CO2 emission free nuclear power? We can deal with the side effects of that once we've averted climate catastrophe. Or perhaps forced re-agrarian society for the crunchy granola types?- Why do we send hundreds of delegates to Paris to generate untold tons of CO2 in the age of telecommuting?- We are we not tariffing cheap imports to curtail pointless consumerism. Imagine the reduction in CO2 and landfill waste if we replaced our iPhones every 24 months versus every 12?

Fun fact: According to sources quoted in the Miami Herald Miami is locked in and will be underwater by 2025 (as will most of of Southren Florida). Dr. Hockey Stick himself just stated in March that Miami will be underwater in 20 years (versus 9 - I guess the horizon of plausability was getting a bit too close). Are these to be taken at face value or are they extremist/alarmist positions to get attention? If extremist, then he may want to read "The Boy Who Cries Wolf".

@4 DAMN IT SON! I was just starting to listen to Nancy Ajram's "Yay Seher Oyuno" and I was just about to put it up. That reminds me of high school! The "update" (if you will) the Jawa Report did on the '06 Israel-Lebanese War was pretty good too.

…or is it ISIL? or ISIM? You mean the one who honored cancerous, senile, spittle-flecked Incitatus Juan 'Batshit' McAmnesty or Arizona's Sun City as its Admiral? Or would that be the one whose founding father is Miss Lindsay Graham, Incitatus flamingos from the Pink-Palmetto hotel in Charleston? Or the one being backed up (so to speak) by Bathhouse Barry-O of Sodom-on-Potomac? There are so many of them it gets confusing, I swear!

It's a debased currency, what do your expect? I'm sure the Pedo-Bears will be fighting it tooth and claw…. Imagine my surprise (((Jack Lew))) sez YT needs to worship golden dindu long-term. No doubt Hi-Fellatin' Franny and Apostle Copeland will agree. Lady Gaga needs to be next Archbitch of Canterbury for sure.

Oreskes isn't a "leading climate mind," she's a historian and a cheerleader for any progressive cause with a science-y flavor to it. Her climate change consensus study from 2004 has been thoroughly refuted, as has her bullshit documentary.

Mann is actually a scientists, but he's one guy. Climate science is a big field and there's more diversity than we've been led to believe. All you have to do is dig through the peer-reviewed research and that becomes clear.

It's also becoming clear that researchers like Mann have badly overestimated the climate's sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Even the American Geophysical Union is beginning to concede the point: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_knappenberger.pdf

"Scientists are just about ready to come out of the lab and get more active"

The watermelons are coming out of the closet.

I had a guy on my doorstep last year trying to sell me on paying $3.75 extra each month to tell the power company I only wanted my electricity to come from "green renewable resources". The conversation ended with him telling me "You need to educate yourself sir!".

In another twist, Alexander Hamilton got a reprieve. Initially targeted for replacement by a woman on the $10 bill, Hamilton's reputation was burnished by an unlikely smash Broadway play and his case pressed by (((outraged historians))) pointing to his seminal role in creating the nation's first (((central bank))).

Treasury's announcement followed almost a year of heated public debate, shaped by social media and history alike.

Even former Federal Reserve Chairman (((Ben Bernanke))) weighed in, pressing Hamilton's case on his blog. Bernanke wrote Wednesday that Tubman was an “excellent and deserving choice” while Hamilton had a better claim than any to stay on a bill.

@72 The only times I've said that, I gave DOIs to look up. Today privcheckbots forget that crucial step.

@74 The woman who I encouraged for many years to get citizenship in Canada (and who used to run a web page called An American's Guide to Canada in the early web days) ended our nearly 20 year friendship by calling the police on me for butthurt in 2013.

denektenorsk wrote:Fun fact: According to sources quoted in the Miami Herald Miami is locked in and will be underwater by 2025 (as will most of of Southren Florida). Dr. Hockey Stick himself just stated in March that Miami will be underwater in 20 years (versus 9 - I guess the horizon of plausability was getting a bit too close). Are these to be taken at face value or are they extremist/alarmist positions to get attention? If extremist, then he may want to read "The Boy Who Cries Wolf".

The average global temperature in 1997 was 14.5 degrees Celsius, which is the exact same average temperature it was in 2013. This is contrary to ALL 60+ IPCC models, which predicted significant increases in the average global temperature. Here is a decent article on the matter;

Just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming scam, but an important basic fact to keep in mind.

@73

I don't know; when do you think idiots will learn basic historical facts? Like Alexander Hamilton not being Jewish? Judging by your posts, you would make fine raw material (if a tad thick) for the baking championships, though.

The most interesting thing about climate change is that A) It seems to happen every 500 years or so and B) It most certainly DID happen in the mid-1500s, wiping out the Anasazi and the city of Petra (the one in the 3rd Indiana Jones movie)

Since this predates the Industrial Revolution and therefore cannot be man-made, the Warmies ignore it completely. What causes it? Well there are some interesting downturns in solar activity that the same Warmies also ignore.

There is no science in the AGW movement, just politics wearing a white lab coat instead of a Mao hat or a Che t-shirt.

Again, speaking as a scientist, NO ONE in the entire world truly understands atmospheric science and can predict anything about temperature trends.

For instance, no one can quantify the effect of clouds on temperature. Every atmospheric scientist agrees that it is vitally important and effects global temperature, but no one has properly modeled it.

Again, this is why "global cooling" was such a popular theory as recently as the 70s.

@74 The woman who I encouraged for many years to get citizenship in Canada (and who used to run a web page called An American's Guide to Canada in the early web days) ended our nearly 20 year friendship by calling the police on me for butthurt in 2013.

I had a guy on my doorstep last year trying to sell me on paying $3.75 extra each month to tell the power company I only wanted my electricity to come from "green renewable resources". The conversation ended with him telling me "You need to educate yourself sir!".

So they want to expand bad refereeing from just their journals to the world at large. Terrific idea.

Unfortunately, you can as an organization only sell your credibility once, and I do believe they've already done that. It won't get better by adding "Science certified by Governor Moonbeam". Just a hint.

LP9 Forever Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra S.I.G. wrote:By all means, the lies of AGW are exposed - Gen X and many mil'lens know AGW is just financial rape of us and we are not going to go along with financial rape with Blood and Gore<shaking my head> For a bunch of people who are supposedly good at following chains of logic, you're pretty badly stuck at the dogmatic level. The watermelons' prescription for climate change is the same prescription the Reds have had for everything: more wealth sent to the third world in the name of "equality". Proof that you're not thinking about what they're saying: their prescription does exactly nothing to fix the problem it's allegedly aimed at. For some reason you fail to pick up this devastating logical gun they left pointed right at their own heads. Why? It doesn't fit the Narrative constructed for you.

The Ecomodernists and climate scientists like James Hansen have answers to all the logical critiques of both the Green and Denier narratives. They are pointing out that Sweden has already done what the Greens only claim they can do, while burning vast amounts of coal in both Germany and Denmark in lieu of uranium.

Why NOT promote an energy system like Sweden? After all, the USA was the first to produce nuclear power and is still the biggest generator of nuclear electricity on the planet (though shortly to be eclipsed by China). You could use that to conclusively kill the watermelons' program dead. That logical-rhetorical gun is loaded and sitting there. Why not aim and fire?

Because the Narrative is written by fossil-fuel interests, that's why. Follow The Money.

- How much is natural vs man made?I'm no scientist of any stripe, but one answer is "definitely not enough". Further, we don't know enough about these systems to go making wild changes safely. It's a high-stakes experiment with one trial and no controls.

@81 FYI, I've just come across a mention that the Little Ice Age might have been caused by the reforestation of the Americas due to European diseases wiping out much of the human population there. I haven't had time to dig into this. However, it shows that "man-made" is more than just "industrial".

- How much influence do other factors such as solar activity play into it?Solar activity has been flat to slightly declining in the period for which satellite measurements are available.

- If we are LITERALLY facing the extinction of our species why are we not doing something serious about it, like CO2 emission free nuclear power?I have been SHOUTING AS LOUD AS I CAN THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT JAMES HANSEN, PATRICK MOORE AND STEWART BRAND ARE SAYING, but I can't get through the wall of DOGMA that you've surrounded yourself with to block out all non-narrative-compliant thought. You substitute strawmen for every voice not singing in exact key with your choir, just as the watermelons do.

- Why do we send hundreds of delegates to Paris to generate untold tons of CO2 in the age of telecommuting?The Leo DiCaprio critique writ large. One possible response is that they're watermelon commisars, and Low Carbon For Thee But Not For Me is just what they do. Since the vast majority of such delegates are either leftists or Greens they can be dismissed as not actually caring about the problem because neither their policy proposals nor their behavior address it. That's a really good argument for taking them out of the climate policy arena, isn't it... and also NOT allowing them to pose as the leadership?

- We are we not tariffing cheap imports to curtail pointless consumerism. Imagine the reduction in CO2 and landfill waste if we replaced our iPhones every 24 months versus every 12?

Imagine the reduction in CO2 and landfill waste if we used nuclear power for electricity, and fed our un-recyclables through plasma torches to turn them into combustible gas and inert, un-leachable slag. Imagine what we could get back if we threw all our old iPhones and other electronic junk into acid baths, then electrolyzed them to extract all the lead, tin, copper and gold?

Stop taking self-styled Greens as the only other mode of thought out there.

So you have no idea what the answer is yet you believe it's "not enough"? Nice show of true faith. But I don't believe my taxes should go up or activities be restricted for your religion.

Further, we don't know enough about these systems to go making wild changes safely.

Begging the question. (Are we making wild changes? Since you can't even quantify the human factor you can't answer that.)

It's a high-stakes experiment with one trial and no controls.

Bad things will happen if you don't believe! BAAAD...THINGSSSS! As determined by TOP...MEN!

FYI, I've just come across a mention that the Little Ice Age might have been caused by the reforestation of the Americas due to European diseases wiping out much of the human population there. I haven't had time to dig into this. However, it shows that "man-made" is more than just "industrial".

There's that faith again in assuming the hypothesis is worth the dead tree it's printed on. (Which is doubtful since the LIA started before Columbus' discovery of the new world.)

Solar activity has been flat to slightly declining in the period for which satellite measurements are available.

What a shock since satellite temps have been flat to. (I see your sleight of hand: use the sats for solar irradiance but the heavily UHI biased and manipulated ground data set for temps.)

We are we not tariffing cheap imports to curtail pointless consumerism. Imagine the reduction in CO2 and landfill waste if we replaced our iPhones every 24 months versus every 12?

Cell phone replacements are typically on a 2 year cycle. Working phones tend to be resold and used for another 2-4. Even if they were all replaced every 12 months and all thrown away they do not amount to anything from the perspective of CO2 or landfill.

If you assume that the AGW climate models are correct then nothing short of transitioning all fossil fuel powered electrical production on Earth to nuclear within the next 10-20 years will make a dent. And you better follow up with complete conversion of the global automobile fleet to EVs within about 10-15 years of that.

Both of these propositions are logistically off the table for the U.S., which means there's no way they will happen in nations like China and India. (And no, the U.S. is not enough. If the U.S. disappeared from the Earth entirely it would alter AGW GCM warming curves by 12 years.)

Lucky for us that the AGW based GCMs have already been falsified. That's the scientific term for "muh predictions didn't come true." We were supposed to trust them out to 100 years. They didn't work out to 10.

Why?

* CO2 is a weak GHG. (Doubling of preindustrial levels would have a max forcing of +1.2C absent feedbacks.)

* AGW rests on the idea of a large, positive H2O feedback to rising CO2.

* There is no H2O feedback.

To paraphrase one of Vox's favorite sayings: Let theory be silent when observation gainsays its conclusions.

The satellite data set does show warming in the 80's and 90's, though the 90's is distorted upwards by the '97/'98 El Nino event.

They've been flat since.

What warming they have shown is not consistent with AGW GCM predictions. It's far too low (and occurring at the wrong altitudes).

The AGW crowd produced a graph with a wide margin of error colored in gray to pretend that sat temps were "within range." They'll need to widen the margin soon because the sat temps are about to break out of the bottom.

See! Our predictions of 2-6C of warming by 2100 are coming true!*

* Predictions have a margin of error of +/- 20C. Predictions void in Nebraska.

I have been thinking about the whole warming thing and what I am personally doing that would contribute to it. My car craps stuff out the exhaust but also the engine gets rather hot and is ultimately cooled by the air. Every time I use the brakes heat is also generated. When I cook I create heat and extra moisture that the air must absorb. Warm showers too. When the air temp is below 98.6 degrees my body temp contributes to the warming. Every device I have that radiates RF energy also contributes. Certainly seems like that there is very little that I do that does not add to the problem. However, there are some simple things that I can do to reduce my contributions: (1) stop showering (2) stop exercising since more thermal energy is created by exercise...also ban all sports like football etc (3) stop cooking (4) stop using brakes on the car (5) configure my body to be cold blooded.....wait....scratch that...won't work without health complications (6) turn off all my RF devices even though that is just a drop in the bucket as compared to the bazillions of RF watts generated by radio/tv/cell phone/satellite/radars/communications/microwave ovens/etc that operate 24/7.

I just do not know if this will be enough to help. I am so scared of being called a thernmalist. What more can I do?

So you have no idea what the answer is yet you believe it's "not enough"? Nice show of true faith.Look at the evidence. If a handful of ppm of CO2 reduction from reforestation of the Americas was enough to create the Little Ice Age, the 125+ ppm of CO2 added since the industrial revolution plus the massive additions of fossil methane are going to have a much larger effect. Just because we haven't had a chance to quantify all the natural cycles (which are also being affected) doesn't mean that every change can be attributed to them.

What I worry about is the end of civilization itself. The IR came about during the LIA, in some of the areas most heavily affected; tropical climes are not conducive to such advances.

Further, we don't know enough about these systems to go making wild changes safely.

Begging the question. (Are we making wild changes? Since you can't even quantify the human factor you can't answer that.)Boosting atmospheric CO2 100 ppm above the highest level seen in 800,000 years of ice-core data is a wild change, and it's not the only one humans have made.

Bad things will happen if you don't believe!Doing things blindly is foolhardy. You can get away with speeding down the road in heavy fog, but that's not the way to bet.

use the sats for solar irradiance but the heavily UHI biased and manipulated ground data set for temps.Because satellites aren't measuring surface temperatures.

If you assume that the AGW climate models are correct then nothing short of transitioning all fossil fuel powered electrical production on Earth to nuclear within the next 10-20 years will make a dent.When France went nuclear it only took about 15 years to replace most of its fossil fuel in electric generation. China's pursuing a massive nuclearization program, including a crash effort to develop drop-in nuclear boiler replacements for coal plants. They started in 2012 and are aiming to be done in 10 years.

And you better follow up with complete conversion of the global automobile fleet to EVs within about 10-15 years of that.

Both of these propositions are logistically off the table for the U.S.Nonsense. Other countries have made bigger changes in similar amounts of time, including France and Sweden. The typical vehicle drives half its lifetime mileage in the first 6 years. The problem in the USA isn't engineering, it's politics.

there's no way they will happen in nations like China and India.China is run by technocrats, like the ones who carried out France's switch from oil to uranium. China is under heavy pressure to eliminate its massive air-pollution problem. Nuclear deals with that, and eliminates CO2 emissions almost as an afterthought. When you start seeing change there, the speed and magnitude is going to blow your mind.

Feather Blade wrote:I also haven't seen any Warmists telling people that AC condensers contribute to Climate ChangeBecause the direct effects are both local and swamped by the influence of the GHGs involved in powering them.

@100 If a handful of ppm of CO2 reduction from reforestation of the Americas was enough to create the Little Ice Age,

You are so lost. You are pushing a theory (AGW) you do not even begin to understand.

* Once again, the LIA started BEFORE Columbus discovered America. Before any diseases were introduced. Long before there could have been any reforestation.

* AGW GCMs do not in any way suggest that climate is sensitive to "a handful of ppm of CO2." CO2 is a weak GHG. This is a matter of basic, lab verifiable physics. The IPCC concurs that CO2, absent feedbacks, has little effect.

* AGW theory has never been about CO2. It's about H2O's response to CO2. A response that the theory says only shows up after a large increase of CO2.

The LIA could not have possibly been caused by small changes in CO2.

Boosting atmospheric CO2 100 ppm above the highest level seen in 800,000 years of ice-core data is a wild change

Why? Because the number is big and scary to you?

You say "in 800,000 years" because CO2 has been MUCH higher before that. As best as we can tell those higher CO2 levels didn't cause any form of run away climate instability. Yet they were absolutely fantastic for biomass and biodiversity.

Doing things blindly is foolhardy.

We're not doing anything blindly. We have years of observation that show climate sensitivity to CO2 is at the absolute bottom of AGW predictions, or below. The H2O feedback either doesn't exist, or is very, very weak.

Because satellites aren't measuring surface temperatures.

No. They're measuring the atmosphere with no UHI biases. If you think AGW would be limited to the ground then you shouldn't be discussing this topic. Ever.

When France went nuclear it only took about 15 years to replace most of its fossil fuel in electric generation.

France is not the US, much less the globe. When president Obama pushed the Waxman-Markey bill I researched the costs to meet its goals (this is US only). Over 1,000 fission power plants at a cost of nearly $12T. We're $19T in debt and racing for more debt. You think we can afford this? A direct tax to fund these nuclear plants would be $1,000 per person for 40 years. Go ahead and try to make that happen.

China's pursuing a massive nuclearization program, including a crash effort to develop drop-in nuclear boiler replacements for coal plants. They started in 2012 and are aiming to be done in 10 years.

You are clueless if you believe all of China's coal plants will be nuclear in 10 years. They have 4x the coal plant capacity we do, and they're still building new plants at record speed.

Nonsense. Other countries have made bigger changes in similar amounts of time, including France and Sweden.

The US has nearly 10x the electrical production of France and Sweden combined. You have obviously never looked into this. Never researched and crunched the numbers and the dollars.

France can do something like this because they are relatively small and at the time were relatively wealthy. Absent a radical advance in nuclear tech, it's not going to happen in the U.S. Which means it's not going to happen in China, India, the ME, Africa, etc.

The typical vehicle drives half its lifetime mileage in the first 6 years.

It takes roughly 25-30 years for the US auto fleet to turn over (except for collector cars of course). If suitable EVs were ready today, with charging stations every where, you would be looking at an EV fleet in 25 years.

EVs are far from being ready to replace all vehicles for all needs. And we have no where near the nuclear plant capacity to insure that those EVs aren't responsible for CO2 at the source.

Just dig up a bunch of quotes from the 1970's, when global cooling was going to kill everyone instead of global warming.---

That's the best part. I remember them saying an impending ice age and glaciers were going to over run Canada. It would be like the land bridge from Asia, where they would all migrate into Mexico or further south.

I have been SHOUTING AS LOUD AS I CAN THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT JAMES HANSEN, PATRICK MOORE AND STEWART BRAND ARE SAYING, but I can't get through the wall of DOGMA that you've surrounded yourself with to block out all non-narrative-compliant thought. You substitute strawmen for every voice not singing in exact key with your choir, just as the watermelons do.

Try reading the Ecomodernist Manifesto and see if it addresses your objections to the watermelon agenda.

Thanks for the link, I'll definitely read it. I'm actually quite familiar with Dr. Barry Brook - I like to trot this one out from time to time (https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/) when crunchy greeny types go on about wind turbines and like, battery storage man. I'm also familiar with Patrick Moore (see below).

As I said, I DO believe the climate is changing. I don't see how asking questions, e.g. how much is natural versus man made is a strawman argument - I didn't try to refute anything by posing questions AFTER I said I agree that the climate is a changin'. I just don't swallow the Climate Change narrative whole either.

As for the iPhones example - I use that as an example of rampant consumerism that is mostly produced with carbon based energy sources, using exploited 3rd world labour, and shipped around the world using diesel cargo ships. Substitute it for whatever throw away cheap trash people buy plenty of in your particular neck of the woods and throw away a short period of time later. Latte cups perhaps?

Posing the nuclear power solution was a rhetorical question - there are much better placed and well known advocates who are pissing into that particular wind storm (e.g. Dr. Barry Brook). I'm just trying to raise awarness of it here in my own way.

In the past we've had ice ages and warm periods with shallow seas over Alberta and dinosaurs pooping all over the place. Do we really think we can stop those levels of change? Lets say for arguments sake 75% is man made and 25% is natural. If we give it our best with todays tech then, ~15 years from now we can have everything replaced with nuclear power (we then need to work out what to do with radioactive waste but progress is being made on that front too including reusing "spent" (i.e. ~10% used) fuel rods). 4th generation reactors that work at atmospheric pressure are really interesting.

That eliminates the 75% manmade contribution but then there is still the 25% natural process. Do we then try to fiddle the climate to compensate and try to make it static? What sort of hubris is that? How much of our strategy should be adapting to a changing climate? That's what Patrick Moore (former Green Peace dude you mention above) advocates (aside from nuclear power too). We adapt to a changing climate because we have no control over it. Of course they just scream "bought by big oil" and dismiss him.

My point is if we are literally facing an extention level event then we don't seem to be doing very much about it other than decades of talking. Especially considering we could actually solve it with existing technology. For that matter we could have done so in the 80s/90s and not be having this conversation today.

Stop taking self-styled Greens as the only other mode of thought out there.

I'm not. For example I advocate to our local government that we should be burning plastics for energy (ala Sweden). It costs more energy to recycle plastic than it does to make it from scratch not to mention the time sink. If you consider most people wash it with heated water backed by a carbon fired electrical source then it costs even more energy to recycle. We should recycle paper, aluminum and glass - there is a savings there. The rest... BURN IT.

France can do something like this because they are relatively small and at the time were relatively wealthy. Absent a radical advance in nuclear tech, it's not going to happen in the U.S. Which means it's not going to happen in China, India, the ME, Africa, etc.

Re: Advance in nuclear tech, take a look at what those hippies at Berkely (and somewhat in China) are doing with 4th generation nuclear power. They are experimenting with reactors that run with liquid salts at atmospheric pressure. There is also exciting research into reusing "spent" fuel rods and sucking more of the gooey nuclear goodness out of the fuel.

I don't know if it would change matters much. Personally I don't believe the political will is even there to try to start. We'll just yammer on about carbon taxes and end up doing not much of anything.

DT wrote:Once again, the LIA started BEFORE Columbus discovered America. Before any diseases were introduced. Long before there could have been any reforestation.The first major cold dip in the LIA began around 1650, well after Columbus.

AGW GCMs do not in any way suggest that climate is sensitive to "a handful of ppm of CO2." CO2 is a weak GHG. This is a matter of basic, lab verifiable physics. The IPCC concurs that CO2, absent feedbacks, has little effect.But you've got feedbacks, with water and methane. As northern bogs stay frozen more of the year and some switch to permafrost, they emit less methane (~10 year atmospheric lifespan). Water just precipitates out.

Why? Because the number is big and scary to you?On the one hand, you claim that the climate models are unreliable. On the other hand, you argue for continuing to push the atmosphere into territory unseen since proto-humans came down from the trees... like driving at high speed into thick fog.

Run the numbers yourself. Going from 275 to 400 ppm CO2 has increased the height of the open IR window to space in the CO2 band by roughly 9000-10000 feet. There is NO basis on which to claim that this has no effect; we have 33°C of greenhouse effect proving that it must.

The LIA could not have possibly been caused by small changes in CO2.How can you say that? You don't have any verifiable model you can use to trace it back to causes.

We have years of observation that show climate sensitivity to CO2 is at the absolute bottom of AGW predictions, or below.We have about 2 W/m² of heat going into the oceans, blunting any further feedback loops. That cannot last forever.

France is not the US, much less the globe.France did what the USA was poised to do and almost did, but didn't thanks to the coal lobby and James Earl Carter.

When president Obama pushed the Waxman-Markey bill I researched the costs to meet its goals (this is US only). Over 1,000 fission power plants at a cost of nearly $12T.I'd like to know what you were smoking. Average electric demand in the USA isn't even 450 GW, so about 400 AP1000s would handle all of it. At $6000/kW(e) that would be about $2.4 trillion, and you'd have all the savings from not needing to dig coal, drill gas, build pipelines, and pay for the health problems of fossil fuel effluents and byproducts.

You are clueless if you believe all of China's coal plants will be nuclear in 10 years.<tap-tap> That's the strawman you're talking to. I'm over here.

Here's the World Nuclear Association page on worldwide molten-salt reactor efforts. It looks like China's nearest-term technology is a TRISO-fueled, salt-cooled unit (their schedule has been pushed out a few years since I last looked). You can pick your operating temperature with such reactors so you can generate steam in whatever state the balance-of-plant works with; you're not limited to ~300°C like water-cooled reactors. This makes it possible to re-power existing steam plants by just replacing the boiler. OF COURSE it wouldn't be an overnight process, but small reactor modules that can be factory-built would make France's switchover look glacial by comparison. China will go from there to selling overseas; it's their general game plan for everything.

The US has nearly 10x the electrical production of France and Sweden combined.Sweden's population isn't even 10 million. France has about 64 million on the mainland and generates about 1/7 as much juice as the USA, or about 70% as much per capita.

You have obviously never looked into this. Never researched and crunched the numbers and the dollars.Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.

France can do something like this because they are relatively small and at the time were relatively wealthy.At the time, France was still rebuilding from being a war zone and was paying suddenly-exorbitant rates for the fuel its grid ran on. The USA did much the same, replacing oil-fired generation with nuclear (I'd point you to the EIA figures but the site is down for maintenance tonight). Further, when the whole effort started nuclear plants were cheaper to build than coal. It was government that drove prices into the stratosphere. Neither China nor S. Korea have that problem.

Absent a radical advance in nuclear tech, it's not going to happen in the U.S.We've been sitting on radical advances in nuclear tech since the 1960's. They have been regulated and legislated out of existence. That may be changing here, and China certainly has no incentive to sit on tech to protect oil producers.

It takes roughly 25-30 years for the US auto fleet to turn over (except for collector cars of course).It's not cars registered, it's which cars are doing the miles.

If suitable EVs were ready today, with charging stations every where, you would be looking at an EV fleet in 25 years.Charging stations are ALREADY everywhere. Every electric outlet is a charging station. They're slow, but who needs speed when the car is parked overnight anyway? We don't need 25 years; if we switched over to 100% EV production today, fuel consumption would drop by half by 2022.

EVs are far from being ready to replace all vehicles for all needs.Who said they had to? "Most for most" will do. The Tesla Model 3 is Supercharger-capable and very reasonably priced, and the Chevy Bolt looks similar. This is NOT going to be a small thing. If you need to drive 800 miles in a day now and then, you can always rent something for the occasion.

And we have no where near the nuclear plant capacity to insure that those EVs aren't responsible for CO2 at the source.We don't have it yet. However, CCGTs aren't that bad and they're cheap.

It's not happening. But then again neither is run away warming.Until it is. Ever heard of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? That happened without any industrial assistance (that we know of). Now think of the same thing again, with humans making the entire inventory of the carboniferous available to help.

Speaking of which, what is YOUR explanation for the PETM?

denektenorsk wrote:In the past we've had ice ages and warm periods with shallow seas over Alberta and dinosaurs pooping all over the place. Do we really think we can stop those levels of change?Considering that the arrangement of continents was radically different at the time, I don't think it matters much. Such changes happen way too slowly to pose any threat of sudden, unforeseen consequences.

That eliminates the 75% manmade contribution but then there is still the 25% natural process. Do we then try to fiddle the climate to compensate and try to make it static? What sort of hubris is that?Let's put off such questions until we know exactly what's going on. Until then, let's stop messing with an essential system that we understand so poorly.

My point is if we are literally facing an extention level event then we don't seem to be doing very much about it other than decades of talking. Especially considering we could actually solve it with existing technology. For that matter we could have done so in the 80s/90s and not be having this conversation today.Yes, exactly! France and Sweden did essentially solve that problem, and Ontario has finally done it too. But if you look at the political alignments, they're all pushing in the direction of programs that have done it very poorly. This looks weird until you Follow The Money, then it all makes sense.

(finished, whew!)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.